The Zionist federation of Australia  should be recognised as a duplicitous and malicious actor in Australian society and politics.

Lawfare is the use of legal forums for political purposes. Both overseas and in Australia, it has been used against individuals and civil society organisations that support Palestinian rights. In 2013, Israeli lawfare centre Shurat HaDin filed an ultimately unsuccessful case in the Australian Federal Court against Professor Jake Lynch, founder and director of the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. Subsequent attempts to suppress pro-Palestine advocacy have been mounted by Zionists within Australia.

On 7 April, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) took legal action against respected journalist Mary Kostakidis in the Federal Court of Australia. Kostakidis has long been a voice of integrity and authority within Australian news media and has been targeted for precisely this reason. While mainstream media strenuously suppresses the most horrific of the information coming out of Gaza, and regurgitates Israel’s propaganda instead of investigating and reporting, Kostakidis has provided factual commentary on the genocide.

To appreciate the danger to Australian democracy, let alone to both Palestinians and Jews, posed by this legal action, it is essential to understand the nature and purpose of the ZFA. In essence, it is an agent for a foreign state, and exists to mobilise the Jewish community of Australia in defence of this state, irrespective of the interests of Australia and its people.

As stated on its website, the ZFA “believes in the centrality of Israel as a determining factor in the creation and maintenance of Jewish identity”. This is patently garbage. Jewish identity existed for literally millennia before the ideology of political Zionism emerged from antisemitic Christian Evangelical theology, was adopted by a few Jewish leaders in Eastern Europe (while opposed by the vast majority of Jews worldwide), and adopted by Britain in pursuit of its imperial interests in West Asia (aka the Middle East).

Further, “the ZFA is committed to advocating for the state of Israel on behalf of the Jewish community of Australia”. This statement could have been deliberately designed to foment antisemitism. It is a classic antisemitic trope that Jews have dual allegiance, primarily loyal to some nebulous malicious global cabal, and only secondarily committed to their own country. The only difference here is that the ZFA names this entity – the state of Israel.

And it gets worse. The ZFA boasts that it “is in regular consultation with the Australian and Israeli Governments”. Imagine the furore if the Chinese Communist Party mobilised supporters in Australia to liaise between the two governments to promote China’s interests. Imagine if the CCP took an Australian journalist to court for accurately commenting on China’s human rights abuses!

The case brought by the ZFA against Kostakidis relates to a complaint it first raised with the Australian Human Rights Commission, claiming that posts she made on social media platform X were antisemitic. None of these posts mentioned Jews. The idea that criticism of Israel, expressed in terms that do not allude to, let alone vilify, Jews, is antisemitic, is absurd.

Nevertheless, under intense Zionist pressure, Australia has adopted a definition of antisemitism that enables this absurdity. Antisemitism is correctly understood to be “discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever society they inhabit”. The new definition portrays Israel as the “collective Jew” and accords it rights that international law does not accord to any state in the world.

This sleight of hand substitution enables the ZFA to allege that Kostakidis was being antisemitic when she commented that the Israeli Government was “getting some of its own medicine” when the late Hassan Nasrallah, secretary-general of Hezbollah, warned that Israelis were not safe while Israel and Hezbollah were engaged in hostilities.

What was this medicine? The Israeli Government, through the genocidal actions of the Israeli Defence Force, was ensuring that no Palestinian in Gaza was safe, and Nasrallah was pointing out that Israelis would bear the consequences. Especially given that 20% of Israelis are not Jewish, neither Nasrallah or Kostakidis was being antisemitic.

The ZFA made the complaint under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This makes it unlawful to publicly act in a manner that’s “reasonably likely” to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or a group based on their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Jews are neither a race, nor a national or ethnic group. We share a religious heritage, have diverse cultural and ethnic identities, and belong to the nation where we reside. If some Jews don’t like criticism of Israel, that does not make it antisemitic.

The ZFA attack on Kostakidis is an example of the well-honed Zionist practice of “lawfare”. This is a war of attrition against journalists, academics and activists who challenge the Zionist narrative on Israel-Palestine. It takes a terrible toll, not only on the individuals targeted, but also on the principles of journalistic and academic freedom, and on the democratic right to dissent that lies at the heart of our democracy.

The ZFA should be recognised as a duplicitous and malicious actor in Australian society and politics. Jewish people of conscience and commitment to Australian democratic rights and freedoms wholeheartedly support Kostakidis, and call on the wider community to join us in her defence.